Have you ever noticed how environmental systems in architecture are usually invisible? By the same token, climate has become an abstract conception based on and experienced through technical standards. Addressing this issue, this studio will collectively ask: What would an aesthetic of building energy exchange look like? How can an aesthetic of climate and energy interaction inform design and the architect’s agency in larger issues involving the current climate crisis?

Confronting Comfort will respond to the year wide theme of water by questioning why construction practice in the US seems to have a zero tolerance policy toward it. While there are many reasons current building code seeks to remove water, humidity, and corresponding temperature change from the interior environment, broadly it is driven by a narrow definition of thermal comfort which has been dictated by few; historically, white european men. While it is clear that water, or any of the natural elements, in their extremes can be catastrophic, it has long been known that embracing nature in design has many daily health benefits. Biophilic design for instance advocates for the presence of water in design, along with connections to natural systems, thermal and airflow variability, and the presence of dynamic and diffuse light. However, on the surface, each of these features “muck up” the instinct of construction best practice, to fully separate and insulate the interior volume from the exterior. This studio will sit in this tension, looking to confront comfort through both technical (quantitative) and experiential (qualitative) design explorations to investigate architecture's uncomfortable relationship with technology.